Another guy that really shined today was Nadler. Clear, articulate and to the point and the applicable Constitutional law; he spoke firmly with resolve. He was business-like without being either rude or abrasive. He, Strzok and Cummings were three of the far too few adults in the room. Very, very impressive on Nadler's part. By contrast, he made Gowdy, and many Republicans on the Committee, including the the Committee Chairman look small and ridiculous.
You rim-job a pathological liar every day you maggot (I am addressing the one that ate Todd's brain) and you call anything "shocking"? Ok, I said "He made a couple of comments on the work device. They were mostly going through his personal phone messages. It was commented that one led to the other. I've not correlated this but it seems clear that he was not all that bad. He made a mistake for sure but this 20/20 hindsight is pushing it." I will check what I heard, perhaps the maggot is correct and I took up an exchange wrong. Edited: Some of the exchange was on work devices but there was an assumption of more on the personal devices. Page had said (on WaPO) “[T]he predominant reason that we communicated on our work phones was because we were trying to keep our affair a secret from our spouses.” Ok, corrected. (see, that is how it is done trumper, check and be responsible) Affairs are affairs, they happen. The disconnect between supporting a man like Trump as president and expecting professional perfection in all others is impressive. Today was Benghazi all over again. They even had Gowdy and he was told off (and seemed to shut up for a bit) about making it Benghazi again. This was congress doing Putin's work.
That was June. The IG has finished his report I believe. Could not find any evidence of Strzok's personal opinion of Trump carrying over into his job performance. Of course what this means is either there wasn't any bias in his performance of his duties, or the IG missed it. Take your pick. But since most people working for government, including congressmen, senators, the president, and virtually everyone else in government, hold firm opinions, and may from time to time express them in terms just as forthright, pungent, and resolute as Strozok did, you'd be hard pressed to find enough people who had had lobotomies to fill all the important positions in government. The only thing that happened here a bit out of the ordinary is that personal communications were made public with sordid intent. If there really was justice, the only ones that should suffer consequences are the perpetrators of the real transgression, invasion of privacy. Holding strong opinions is not a crime whether or not you're a public employee. One could argue that one ought not to be involved in the investigation of someone whom the investigator holds a strong opinion about. Fine. But if the person investigated is a clinical narcissist whose every waking moment is occupied with saying something distasteful or outrageous so as to intentionally call attention to himself, there will be hardly anyone alive without a strong opinion of that person. Perhaps if you went to Bhutan you could find someone with no particular opinion of Trump.
Have go gotten a rim-job from a maggot? Listen cum funnel, I appreciate your honesty. You just somewhat restored a little hope in me.
Holy shit! That just blew a yuge hole in the Dem propaganda narrative. Emphasis mine below. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an “anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,” Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok. “It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,” he added. http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/12/ig-clinton-foreign-emails/